ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Flexible word position coding in reading: Roles for attention and memory.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 40 Years of Cracking the Orthographic Code: A Special Issue in Honour of Jonathan Grainger's Career.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Readers may fail to notice the error in 'Do love you me?': this is the recently established transposed-word (TW) phenomenon. Word position coding is a novel cognitive construct, and researchers are presently debating the underlying mechanisms. Here I investigated roles for attention and memory. Participants (N = 54) made grammaticality judgements to four-word sequences that formed correct sentences ('The man can run', 'The dog was here'), TW sentences ('The can man run', 'The was dog here'), or ungrammatical control sentences ('The man dog run', 'The was can here'). Sequences were replaced by post-masks after 200 ms, and that post-mask was accompanied by a 50-ms retro-cue in the form of an 'X' presented at a critical location (where one could have locally inferred grammaticality; e.g., between the first and second word of 'The was dog here') or a non-critical location (e.g., between the third and fourth word of 'The was dog here'). TW sentences were harder to reject than control sentences - the classic TW effect - and crucially, this effect was modulated by cue validity, with valid cues attenuating TW effects compared to invalid cues. The present results suggest that focused attention aids the process of binding words to locations. Furthermore, as cues appeared after sentence offset, these results suggest that word position coding may take place in memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.